'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If marriage laws were designed to prevent 'emotional' issues, they'd ban 65 year old men from marrying 18 year old girls from third world countries who barely speak their language........

That's not the basis for the objection though. I was just throwing that in because I very much doubt very many people have considered the emotional reality of such a complex arrangement when 'throwing it out there' as a possibility. Wanting sex with multiple partners necessarily means that you are not really that interested in exclusive relationships, which is the reality of what marriage means.

Well as I said its no coincidence that the only working examples of plural marriage that exist arise from repressive religions - where the woman is almost always seen as a possession, and be married to X number of women carries similar prestige to the owning of X thousand head of cattle.

Hey - but what if Jane chose to marry Joe + David + Johnny?

I agree with what AJ said: being for only ONE definition of marriage is dangerously close to what anti-gay marriage proponents espouse as an idea of what marriage is.

Well I don't assume society is static - that doesn't mean you can impose revolutionary changes overnight.

The simple fact of the matter is - permitting gay marriage is far less controversial than people are making out and easier to enshrine in law than doing away with the concept entirely or opening it up to multiple partners (which renders the concept redundant anyway). From a purely practical point of view.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, it's nothing to do with that. Marriage is a contract between two people not because of sex, but the requirement to frame a relationship within which one can best further the success happiness and procreation possibilities of the participants.

There are no really successful models of plural marriages (not polygamy which is entirely different) to look to in order to make an educated and calculated assessment of how that would work. It's got nothing to do with the sexuality of the participants, and everything to do with the practicality of introducing multiple partners into a relationship that is based on exclusivity.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Plural marriage actually exists in many human traditions. Gay marriage would be brand new.

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm still wondering where the plural marriage lobby group is

I'm right here!

Who's with me?

I'll sign that petition although one woman is way more than I can handle so I'll choose to not partake

Me too, which is why I need another guy to help me out

[Peikko 1,575]

Marriage? Plural relationships, sure, but marriage?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm still wondering where the plural marriage lobby group is

I'm right here!

Who's with me?

I'll sign that petition although one woman is way more than I can handle so I'll choose to not partake

Me too, which is why I need another guy to help me out

you fairy.

Marriage? Plural relationships, sure, but marriage?

Plural marriages exist and have existed for centuries in many human cultures. Gay marriage never has except very recently.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Randomizer

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I want a harem -- but it will be a celibate one.

[mawilson 2,133]

Marriage? Plural relationships, sure, but marriage?

Why not? Wouldn't it better for a child to have 4 parents instead of 2?

[justashooter 430]

I'm still wondering where the plural marriage lobby group is

I'm right here!

Who's with me?

I'll sign that petition although one woman is way more than I can handle so I'll choose to not partake

three was good, but four was just too much. they got all katty and $hit. threw them back to their dorm rooms and quit paying for the clubbing. used to see them occasionally after that. always in pairs.

[Peikko 1,575]

Plural marriage, with a multiplicity of 'partners' makes a nonsense out of the notion of marriage. There is no necessity to marry unless you wish to select a partner with whom to live and derive the mutual benefits from having that exclusive relationship.

Actually, marriage is really about property ownership

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Plural marriage actually exists in many human traditions. Gay marriage would be brand new.

Which ones?

True plural marriage - as in *not bound* by a patriarchal structure which involve one man and multiple women.

[Peikko 1,575]

Plural marriage actually exists in many human traditions. Gay marriage would be brand new.

Which ones?

True plural marriage - as in *not bound* by a patriarchal structure which involve one man and multiple women.

Yes, I am waiting for that answer too. I know there are polygamous societies which is not the same thing.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Plural marriage, with a multiplicity of 'partners' makes a nonsense out of the notion of marriage.

Plural marriage has existed for centuries, in many human cultures.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Plural marriage, with a multiplicity of 'partners' makes a nonsense out of the notion of marriage. There is no necessity to marry unless you wish to select a partner with whom to live and derive the mutual benefits from having that exclusive relationship.

Actually, marriage is really about property ownership

If it wasn't for immigration laws, Bren and I would have remained living together as common law, really.

[mawilson 2,133]

Plural marriage, with a multiplicity of 'partners' makes a nonsense out of the notion of marriage. There is no necessity to marry unless you wish to select a partner with whom to live and derive the mutual benefits from having that exclusive relationship.

Actually, marriage is really about property ownership

What if you want to live with multiple partners and "derive the mutual benefits from having that exclusive relationship"?

Property ownership and raising children. Which, let's face it, is easier when there are three or four "parents".